|
Post by graybeard on Jun 19, 2008 6:11:52 GMT -6
What if Gore had been inaugurated?
He might well have stopped the 9-11 attacks.
We might have lifted some sanctions on Iraq, freeing up their oil exports.
At the time of our illegal invasion, the Kurds were prospering as a sem-independent part of Iraq. Saddam had been our ally in the undeclared war on Iran. We supplied both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, btw.
Could we have kept Saddam in line? I think so. He was making pretenses of WMD to keep Iran and other neighbors at bay. That Bu$h used his secret faux WMD as justification for invasion was collateral damage that was his undoing.
Congressmen are on Cspan right now bemoaning that we have no energy policy. We do; we just don't know what it is. Cheney may have promised his oil buddies $100 oil by 2008.
Had Gore been inaugurated, we might still have $27 oil, and we would have a big alternative energy program.
GB
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 19, 2008 15:36:10 GMT -6
And Saddam would never have let Iraq become a breeding ground for terrorists, as terrorists were a threat to his own regime as well.
As you suggested, Saddam would have remained a counterbalance to Iran in the Middle East.
Also, I'd bet money that more Iraqis have been killed in the 5 years since we invaded, than were killed in the preceding 5 years by Saddam.
The Iraq War has been nothing but a revenue-generator for Halliburton, Blackwater, defense contractors, the oil industry, and Bush's rich friends.
But the Iraq War has been a net loss in both life and wealth for everyone else on the planet.
It's served as just another mechanism to transfer wealth upward to Corporate America, at the expense of the Iraqi people, the American people, and all people of the Middle East.
|
|
|
Post by proletariat on Jun 19, 2008 16:53:49 GMT -6
GB,
How old were you in 2000? Gore was running as the hawk and Bush the dove. There is no question that Gore would have invaded Iraq. Gore offered continual critiques of the Powell Doctrine or not going into Baghdad. It is revisionist history at its worse to assume Gore (with Lieberman as VP) would not have gone into Iraq. Gore choosing Lieberman sent a clear signal to the Neo Conservatives that he was on board. William Kristol in fact argued Gore was better than Bush as far as their project was concerned.
As far as 911, it is an open question. I think if he followed Clinton's lead it would have been stopped. Bill was obsessed with this threat, Bush took his eye off the ball. He was concerned about an attack from outer space if I remember correctly. The question if if Gore would have carried on the bill Clinton policy. I think with how he ran away from him in the election season, he may have also took his eye off the board.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Jun 19, 2008 18:33:10 GMT -6
As Al franken once said on his radio show "Saddam may have been a brutal dictator, but he was our brutal dictator.
Rememebr when Saddam was our buddy against the Ayatollah? All those smiley handshaky photos of Rumsfeld and HW with Saddam?
At least HW was smart enough to know to leave Saddam in place to keep a lid on the Iranians
|
|
|
Post by db on Jun 19, 2008 18:34:06 GMT -6
Proletariat, how old are you today, more importantly how intelligent are you? You are the one misinformed by revisionist history at its worst (You should stop listening to the lies of Kristol and Gingrich). Graybeard is right and you are wrong. Go look up the facts, it is not that difficult to do. Gore would not have invaded Iraq, he gave a speech well before the invasion, clearly opposed to the invasion. You have fallen for the Republicon crap on the war, just like those who fell for the Republicon bullshit on the invention of the internet.
|
|
|
Post by bariffsterrier on Dec 22, 2008 14:49:19 GMT -6
Could we have kept Saddam in line? I think so. He was making pretenses of WMD to keep Iran and other neighbors at bay. That Bu$h used his secret faux WMD as justification for invasion was collateral damage that was his undoing. I was against the invasion at the time, I think Pat Buchanan made the best arguments against it. I fully thought that Saddam had his chemical warfare arsenal intact, and that he would draw us into Baghdad, and then unleash his arsenal against us, firing from positions where the civilian population would have been in the line of any counter fire. That would have been a nightmare, American forces under chemical attack, and forced to level entire blocks of housing, killing tens of thousands and inflaming world opinion with pictures of Iraqi's being slaughtered. There is no way that any possible gain would have been worth the price to our troops or the people of Iraq. So in my mind Saddam's arsenal acted as a deterrent to invasion, it was very risky to attack in view of his capabilities as explained by the Bush administration. And yet Bush was not deterred in the least, I suspect because he knew that Saddam had no such capability. Therefore his invasion was launched on a lie.
|
|
|
Post by redwolf on Dec 26, 2008 9:49:58 GMT -6
Saddam and Iraq were never an "imminent threat" to America. Even if he did have some chemical weapons, he had no way of delivering them to American soil. The war was unnecessary, made the world more dangerous, has played a major part in our financial ruin, and caused many unnecessary deaths -- American, Iraqi, and other nationalities. Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfield should be prosecuted for this sad chapter in American history.
And Gore would have never made such a stupid mistake.
|
|
|
Post by agito on Dec 26, 2008 11:27:59 GMT -6
you guys are going to rake me over the coals for this one- but i supported the invasion of Iraq at the time it occurred even though i knew the intelligence was faulty. I just figured that Saddam was a pain in the ass that needed to go, for the sake of Iraqis if not american interests.
There were 2 things that were absent from my line of thinking though. 1)the strategic counterbalance that Iraq played for Iran (and how woefully reticent the other arab emirates are to step up and fill that gap)
2) the nature of the quagmire that nationbuilding provokes.
|
|
|
Post by blueneck on Dec 26, 2008 20:31:46 GMT -6
Gore was a very early and vocal critic of the invasion of Iraq, this is when he started to get his mojo back after the election was stolen from him by Jeb's Florida shenaigans and the republican stacked supreme court. Gore was against it even during a time when most prominent democrats like Hillary were for it
Proletariat is wrong- Gore would never have invaded Iraq - he understood why he was our "buddy" in the middle east - to keep a check on the radicals in iran
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Dec 26, 2008 21:21:50 GMT -6
If you look at Republican actions regarding Iran, and not rhetoric, you see they have been allies all along. HW Bush made a secret trip to Paris in Oct. 1980, and negotiated for Iran to hold the hostages until after the election. Then Poindexter (and no doubt HW) did the Iran Contra deal under Reagan's nose.
The Gulf War was really unnecessary, but it gave HW an excuse to knock down Iraq, helping Iran. Really, what did it matter to us if Kuwait were owned and controlled by Iraq?
Bu$h's war has given Iraq to Iran.
Lame Duck Bu$h just made a deal to supply nuke stuff to UAE, an Iran supplier. Will his new home be in Dubai, or in Tehran?
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 4:59:39 GMT -6
What if Gore had been inaugurated? He might well have stopped the 9-11 attacks. We might have lifted some sanctions on Iraq, freeing up their oil exports. At the time of our illegal invasion, the Kurds were prospering as a sem-independent part of Iraq. Saddam had been our ally in the undeclared war on Iran. We supplied both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, btw. Could we have kept Saddam in line? I think so. He was making pretenses of WMD to keep Iran and other neighbors at bay. That Bu$h used his secret faux WMD as justification for invasion was collateral damage that was his undoing. Congressmen are on Cspan right now bemoaning that we have no energy policy. We do; we just don't know what it is. Cheney may have promised his oil buddies $100 oil by 2008. Had Gore been inaugurated, we might still have $27 oil, and we would have a big alternative energy program. GB Algore is a Green Fascist Global Warming fruitcake. I can't imagine a single positive thing he would have done.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 5:03:20 GMT -6
you guys are going to rake me over the coals for this one- but i supported the invasion of Iraq at the time it occurred even though i knew the intelligence was faulty. I just figured that Saddam was a pain in the ass that needed to go, for the sake of Iraqis if not american interests. There were 2 things that were absent from my line of thinking though. 1)the strategic counterbalance that Iraq played for Iran (and how woefully reticent the other arab emirates are to step up and fill that gap) 2) the nature of the quagmire that nationbuilding provokes. Nobody expected Bush would spend 30 billion American dollars on improving Iraqi infrastructure while ours crumble.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 5:11:55 GMT -6
We need some perspective on this subject: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait#Economic_warfare_and_slant_drillingWhat started the war? The same thing that starts most other wars, money money money money money. And OPEC. OPEC is an oil cartel that seeks to monopolize the oil market. Oil is the lubricant of the 20th and 21st century economy, no amount of Green Futurism will change that simple fact. No alternatives exist. While we fight in Iraq/Afghanistan the real cause of the conflict, OPEC, continues to live on unmolested.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Sept 12, 2009 18:30:29 GMT -6
Iraq should have never been invaded period. It was the only secular Arab state in the region and the main bulwark against Iran.
When we invaded and took over Iraq we effectively eliminated the only real threat against Iran and made Iraq into a Shia state replete with Shariah.
Congress should have done its a job and told the preznit to go fuck himself instead of being a lapdog and rubber stamping a illegal war.
In regards to Al Gore, he probably wouldn't have invaded Iraq had he been president. Beyond that the guy would have carried out most of Bush's domestic corporate agenda as he is no different than any other money grubbing globalist.
For 9/11 its doubtful that it would have been stopped since the CIA, FBI and other intel groups did not take Al-Qeada that seriously. Besides the airline security was a joke and no one ever thought that Boeing airliners would be used as suicide bombs.
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Sept 12, 2009 21:12:58 GMT -6
Well if there had been no Desert Storm in the first place, there wouldn't have been an 9-11. Not that I am taking Osama Bin Laden's side, giving him credence, or cowering to his demands; I am simply stating fact to contrast myself with the irrational neocons. Algore voted yes on Desert Storm and Desert Shield. projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/102/senate/1/votes/31/...and he's a Green Fascist to boot.
|
|